hagen2456

All your examples only show one thing: that removing cyclists from the car lanes will give more accidents. However, and that is the important thing: There will be fewer serious accidents. And that is why Danish and Dutch cyclists fare so much better than cyclists in the rest of the world.

Get over it. After all, admitting that VC speculations about risks are dead wrong is not the end of the world, is it?

hagen2456

As an answer to this "Take the shoulder, if it's of any use at all."? Rather illogical, don't you think?

John Forester

Vehicular Cycling practice, in contrast to the standard American cyclist-inferiority cycling method, arose before there was any scientific data concerning car-bike collisions. However, both of the first two statistical studies (Cross I and II) completely disproved the cyclist-inferiority method and demonstrated that the vehicular cycling method was safer because it avoided by far the greater proportion of such collisions. This is not speculation; it is based on statistical facts. Furthermore, as other studies have been made, many of them, where comparison can be made, tend to support the VC conclusions that crossing and turning movements are far more hazardous than are overtaking movements.

genec

Hmmmm "far more hazardous" is something of a dubious term in this situation, as while indeed crossing and turning movements tend to have a higher frequency of collision, overtaking incidents tend to be more deadly.